recalling the following Nobel Prizes

The Nobel Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences are recalling the following Nobel Prizes, as we
have determined that they were not merited and should
never have been awarded.

We regret any inconvenience
and suffering that granting these prizes may have caused
by giving the flawed economic theories propounded by the
individuals in question unwarranted credibility and influence
on public policy.

Further recalls may be necessary – this
initial step only addresses our most egregious errors.

Milton Friedman
University of Chicago, 1976

Original reasons for award: “Macroeconomics:
for his achievements in the fields of consumption
analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his
demonstration of the complexity of stabilization
policy.”

Reason for recall: Friedman was the 20th century’s
most prominent supporter of laissez-faire capitalism.
Whatever the empirical evidence, he fervently
believed that unregulated markets would lead to
socially desirable outcomes. His naïve belief in
the invisible hand and his bias against government
spending made him argue that government’s role
should be largely limited to that of policeman, judge
and jailer. Friedman was a monetarist obsessed
with controlling inflation who disregarded the social
harm caused when monetary policy led to high
unemployment levels. The application of his laissezfaire
ideology has led to great harm around the
world.

Gary S. Becker
University of Chicago, 1992

Original reasons for award: “Microeconomics and
Economic Sociology: for having extended the
domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of
human behavior and interaction, including nonmarket
behavior.”

Reason for recall: We have concluded that Becker’s
efforts to extend rational choice theory into all aspects
of human activity turned out to be the extension of
defective and highly ideological theory, which led to
flawed policies and needless harm. His models were
based on assuming that all individuals are always
rational and that they constantly seek to maximize
their utility in every aspect of their lives and ignored
a host of factors that contribute to social problems.

Noted feminist economist Barbara Bergmann has
described Becker’s claims as “so preposterous that
there is not much danger of their being believed
and acted on – always excepting the committee
that awards Nobel Prizes in Economics.”

With this recall, we demonstrate that we will no longer allow
ourselves to be duped by absurd theory dressed up
in elegant math.

Robert M. Solow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987

Original reasons for award: “Economic Growth
Theory: for his contributions to the theory of economic
growth.”

Reason for recall: Since we awarded Solow the prize,
it has become abundantly clear that his growth model
was so simplistic that it was highly misleading.

His model explained growth by assuming that only capital
and labor inputs and technical progress were relevant,
and it failed to include natural resources or energy –
as if cars could be made out of tools, workers and
knowledge, but without any steel, rubber or fossil
fuels.

Solow thereby sent economics down a blind
alley that has misled economists and politicians into
failing to understand that growing economies imply
growing demands on the biosphere and worsening
environmental degradation.

To this day, neoclassical growth models inspired by Solow remain fatally
flawed from a biophysical perspective.

Original reasons for award: “Macroeconomics:
for his achievements in the fields of consumption
analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his
demonstration of the complexity of stabilization
policy.”

Reason for recall: Friedman was the 20th century’s
most prominent supporter of laissez-faire capitalism.
Whatever the empirical evidence, he fervently
believed that unregulated markets would lead to
socially desirable outcomes. His naïve belief in
the invisible hand and his bias against government
spending made him argue that government’s role
should be largely limited to that of policeman, judge
and jailer. Friedman was a monetarist obsessed
with controlling inflation who disregarded the social
harm caused when monetary policy led to high
unemployment levels. The application of his laissezfaire
ideology has led to great harm around the
world.

Um....where exactly has it ever been applied? Certainly not in this country...thanks FDR and others.

Evolutionary Muse - Inspire to Evolve
BPS - Where Body meets Performance
Flawless Skin Couture - We give you the tools to make you Flawless

The Nobel Foundation and the Royal Swedish Academy
of Sciences are recalling the following Nobel Prizes, as we
have determined that they were not merited and should
never have been awarded.

We regret any inconvenience
and suffering that granting these prizes may have caused
by giving the flawed economic theories propounded by the
individuals in question unwarranted credibility and influence
on public policy.

Further recalls may be necessary – this
initial step only addresses our most egregious errors.

Milton Friedman
University of Chicago, 1976

Original reasons for award: “Macroeconomics:
for his achievements in the fields of consumption
analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his
demonstration of the complexity of stabilization
policy.”

Reason for recall: Friedman was the 20th century’s
most prominent supporter of laissez-faire capitalism.
Whatever the empirical evidence, he fervently
believed that unregulated markets would lead to
socially desirable outcomes. His naïve belief in
the invisible hand and his bias against government
spending made him argue that government’s role
should be largely limited to that of policeman, judge
and jailer. Friedman was a monetarist obsessed
with controlling inflation who disregarded the social
harm caused when monetary policy led to high
unemployment levels. The application of his laissezfaire
ideology has led to great harm around the
world.

Gary S. Becker
University of Chicago, 1992

Original reasons for award: “Microeconomics and
Economic Sociology: for having extended the
domain of microeconomic analysis to a wide range of
human behavior and interaction, including nonmarket
behavior.”

Reason for recall: We have concluded that Becker’s
efforts to extend rational choice theory into all aspects
of human activity turned out to be the extension of
defective and highly ideological theory, which led to
flawed policies and needless harm. His models were
based on assuming that all individuals are always
rational and that they constantly seek to maximize
their utility in every aspect of their lives and ignored
a host of factors that contribute to social problems.

Noted feminist economist Barbara Bergmann has
described Becker’s claims as “so preposterous that
there is not much danger of their being believed
and acted on – always excepting the committee
that awards Nobel Prizes in Economics.”

With this recall, we demonstrate that we will no longer allow
ourselves to be duped by absurd theory dressed up
in elegant math.

Robert M. Solow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1987

Original reasons for award: “Economic Growth
Theory: for his contributions to the theory of economic
growth.”

Reason for recall: Since we awarded Solow the prize,
it has become abundantly clear that his growth model
was so simplistic that it was highly misleading.

His model explained growth by assuming that only capital
and labor inputs and technical progress were relevant,
and it failed to include natural resources or energy –
as if cars could be made out of tools, workers and
knowledge, but without any steel, rubber or fossil
fuels.

Solow thereby sent economics down a blind
alley that has misled economists and politicians into
failing to understand that growing economies imply
growing demands on the biosphere and worsening
environmental degradation.

To this day, neoclassical growth models inspired by Solow remain fatally
flawed from a biophysical perspective.

This (the recall) must be a joke, right?

Product Educator | USPowdersStatements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

I think its that as a group we tend to place a higher value on education than most other groups, but still interesting statistically. I think the numbers are roughly 18% of the nobel prizes having gone to jews, with jews making up under 6% of the global population.

I think its that as a group we tend to place a higher value on education than most other groups, but still interesting statistically. I think the numbers are roughly 18% of the nobel prizes having gone to jews, with jews making up under 6% of the global population.

I think its that as a group we tend to place a higher value on education than most other groups, but still interesting statistically. I think the numbers are roughly 18% of the nobel prizes having gone to jews, with jews making up under 6% of the global population.

1) Agree education plays an important role.
2) Are you of Jewish extraction? I ask because you wrote: "I think its that as a group we tend to place a higher value on education than most other groups..."
3) Do you have the statistics in terms of The Fields Medal?

Product Educator | USPowdersStatements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

At least 178 Jews and persons of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 23% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2008, and constituting 37% of all US recipients2 during the same period. In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Medicine, and Physics, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 40%, respectively. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.25% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)

Chemistry (30 prize winners, 20% of world total, 28% of US total)
Economics (26 prize winners, 42% of world total, 56% of US total)
Literature (13 prize winners, 12% of world total, 27% of US total)
Peace (9 prize winners, 9% of world total, 10% of US total)3
Physics (47 prize winners, 26% of world total, 37% of US total)
Physiology or Medicine (53 prize winners, 28% of world total, 41% of US total)
See also data on "other Nobels":
Jewish Recipients of the Kyoto Prize (25% of recipients)
Jewish Recipients of the Wolf Foundation Prize (34% of recipients)
Jewish Recipients of the US National Medal of Science (38% of recipients)

Luther's a riot!! Just too bad he's a teacher! So basically any recipient who isn't a socialist should have his NP revoked. LOL!

A Nobel peace prize prize doesn't mean a whole lot these days. Al Gore gets it for a slide show that any college freshman could've put together and Arafat gets one for supporting terrorism for 25 years.

kickitover.org says so, it MUST be true! Join the Revolution! Enjoy using catchy buzzwords like 'grassroots', 'paradigm', 'revolution', 'mavericks', 'radical', 'delusion', and 'insurgency'.

Man, THINGS are happening, you know, like I was reading 'On the Road', and like it's happening ALL OVER AGAIN, you know, like the AWARENESS, bro, join the social CONSCIOUS revolution, man, it's AWESOME!

I am sure it is not for real. These are Economics prizes (more correctly, prizes in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel), and are technically awarded by The Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's Central Bank), the institution that created the prizes in the first place. Somehow, however, the Sveriges Riksbank was not mentioned in the "recall"! Anyway, I seriously doubt there will be any recalls.

Product Educator | USPowdersStatements made by this online persona are the sole property of the owner, and do not necessarily reflect USPowders’ opinion as a whole.

easy, what's your thoughts on why jews win more than other races? bias? repaying them for their tragedies, etc, or rather natural skill? i'm very curious, because my mom is indian (dot not feather), and her family holds a disproportionate amount of doctors. also, in the US, the indian population is rather low, yet every hospital seems to have 2 of them.... maybe the nobel prize is something that the jews are genetically drawn to winning...

easy, what's your thoughts on why jews win more than other races? bias? repaying them for their tragedies, etc, or rather natural skill? i'm very curious, because my mom is indian (dot not feather), and her family holds a disproportionate amount of doctors. also, in the US, the indian population is rather low, yet every hospital seems to have 2 of them.... maybe the nobel prize is something that the jews are genetically drawn to winning...

speculating is hard though without coming off racist.

India has a very high number of 2 things: tech schools and medical schools. There's just a better market for them in the US. Many Indian medical schools are very respected and there's a ton of research coming from that area.

I think its the focus on education, and the guilt-trippery on males who don't achieve from their moms You have to think that even in the basics of it, you have to learn another language just to be able to be considered a man - for your bar mitzvah. So learning is definitely a strong part of it.

Since judiasm is also sort of genetic its possible theres a slightly higher average intelligence in the group too.

I highly doubt the Nobel committee would use language such as, "...that we will no longer allow ourselves to be duped by absurd theory dressed up in elegant math." As well, the Nobel committee would not contentiously conflate the words "monetarist" and "laissez-faire".

Of course it was not a real communication from the Nobel Foundation,click the link.

07-23-2009, 09:56 PM

lutherblsstt

Guest

Originally Posted by roids1

Luther's a riot!! Just too bad he's a teacher! So basically any recipient who isn't a socialist should have his NP revoked. LOL!

Nice straw man bud. Who said anything about socialists? By the way,did you actually click the link?

A Nobel peace prize prize doesn't mean a whole lot these days. Al Gore gets it for a slide show that any college freshman could've put together and Arafat gets one for supporting terrorism for 25 years.

Reason for recall: Friedman was the 20th century’s most prominent supporter of laissez-faire capitalism.

Which is why he supported a Soviet style commissar in charge of the centralization and central planning of credit and monetary policy... That aside, he seemed a decent guy.

Whatever the empirical evidence, he fervently believed that unregulated markets would lead to socially desirable outcomes. His naïve belief in the invisible hand and his bias against government spending made him argue that government’s role should be largely limited to that of policeman, judge and jailer.

Laughable in the extreme. In reality it's interventionists who ignore empirical reality. You know, the type of dip****s who look at the US health care system where nearly half the costs are covered by two single payer systems and the rest by a government mandated corporate sponsored third party payment system, and call it the 'free market'. Free except for all those regulations, controls, mandates, quotas, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. Kind of like a prisoner is free so long as you ignore the ****ing prison.

Central to all such charges from socialists that capitalists 'ignore empirical evidence' is the socialist tendency to ignore any and all existing government interventions when using current conditions as an argument for socialism. This is what allows them to look at problems in the most heavily and tightly regulated industries such as health care and energy and claim the 'free market' is the problem. The trillion or so existing government interventions that have existed and/or been expanded over decades if not centuries are, of course, completely negligible. It's all that 'freedom' that's the real problem. Even when next to none exists.

It is also this tendency which allows them to hook the moniker of 'free market type' to the likes of Bernanke, our new commissar of credit, even though his any and every answer to any problem that arises is government action and central planning. I guess because he works with money he must be a capitalism despite his tendency to want to centrally plan things.

The real problem with the world today Luther is people like you have your heads rammed so firmly up your asses that it's impossible to debate with you because there is no stable reality in your minds; it changes daily with what you eat and the brand and stench of **** that then comes to smear your vision of the world as it passes your head in your colon. Which is one of reasons I do try to avoid debates these days. I'd have a more productive time debating with a schitzofrenic as to which pope he is 'actually' talking to. At least his distorted view of reality may be consistent. But not you people.

We in the US have a government that consumes nearly half the ****ing GDP, employs a quarter of the ****ing workforce, spends the vast majority of its time either redistributing money or sending armies to and fro, and has a federal code which alone is so long that the ****ing index for it needs its own God damn shelving system and soon likely its own building, and which covers everything from classic crimes like murder to the proper way to prepare and label ****ing onion rings to the duty due on catfish importation. The average citizen can't walk down the street without breaking God knows how many laws by default, laws which multiply daily, and the prominent and successful have to worry about federal prosecutors and the PC police every time they cut a loud fart. In what twisted, retarded, moronic, idiotic, distorted, demented, and just outright lunatic frame of mind must one be in for the words 'free market' to apply to this situation?

Becker's theology was a step in the right direction for labor economics. It started a lot of other studies on how individual businesses and agents of the firm negotiate, manage time, and capital. His study also led to further studies on pregnant women's success later in life, the impact of the EITC, etc. Becker is a good economist.

Central to all such charges from socialists that capitalists 'ignore empirical evidence' is the socialist tendency to ignore any and all existing government interventions when using current conditions as an argument for socialism. This is what allows them to look at problems in the most heavily and tightly regulated industries such http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...es/bling.gifas health care and energy and claim the 'free market' is the problem. The trillion or so existing government interventions that have existed and/or been expanded over decades if not centuries are, of course, completely negligible. It's all that 'freedom' that's the real problem. Even when next to none exists.

What truly bothers me, though, is that individuals on both sides of the fence tend to ignore any and all sense of pragmatic social analysis when delving into either/or style of economy - that is, they tend not to consider the wide-range of historically-binding circumstances [...aside from economizing activity...] that places a given nation, at a given time, in a given state of development.

What truly bothers me, though, is that individuals on both sides of the fence tend to ignore any and all sense of pragmatic social analysis when delving into either/or style of economy - that is, they tend not to consider the wide-range of historically-binding circumstances [...aside from economizing activity...] that places a given nation, at a given time, in a given state of development.

Not the Austrians, at least in the sense that they realize capital must be accumulated and tended over time. Every other school of economics seems to think all you need to do is drop a ****load of greenbacks on people and all of a sudden they'll all have iPhones.

Doesn't look like it. I'm not sure luther has even contributed an original thought to this section. Most of his posts are just material that he cuts and pastes from left wing websites.

But yes, the jews are some impressive people. Especially considering how much oppression and persecution they've had to deal with for the last 3,000 years. The success that they seem to enjoy everywhere they go certainly makes some people angry and green with envy. Perhaps that's why the arabs hate them so much. They've accomplished more in 60 years than the arabs haven't been able to accomplish in 3,000.